Vicarious Sovereignty: The Place of Extraterritorial Turkey in the Vision of Bengali Muslims (1890–1917)

Muslim politics in colonial Bengal came to be characterized by an emotive affinity to the “extraterritorial”—i.e. affinity to the Ottoman Empire, whose seat of power was separated from Bengal by nearly six thousand kilometers—at the turn of the twentieth century. According to the logic of nationalism, this affinity signaled Muslims’ deviation from India and foreboded Muslim separatism. Probing into a rich historical archive, I argue that this extraterritorial turn implied neither a pan-Islamic geopolitical agenda nor any renunciation of loyalty to British India. On the contrary, the extraterritorial Turkish Empire represented, for them, a site for enacting what I call “vicarious sovereignty,” a form of authority that neither stems from the nation-state nor is actualized through violence; rather, it rests on the power of what anthropologists call charisma and functions as an empty signifier, which is conducive, above all, to the cultivation of self.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Modern Intellectual History
Published
2025-08-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1479244325100024
Primary Topic
Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Vicarious Sovereignty: The Place of Extraterritorial Turkey in the Vision of Bengali Muslims (1890–1917)

T. Syahrul Reza
Modern Intellectual History
Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
article

Vicarious Sovereignty: The Place of Extraterritorial Turkey in the Vision of Bengali Muslims (1890–1917)

T. Syahrul Reza
article en

Abstract

Muslim politics in colonial Bengal came to be characterized by an emotive affinity to the “extraterritorial”—i.e. affinity to the Ottoman Empire, whose seat of power was separated from Bengal by nearly six thousand kilometers—at the turn of the twentieth century. According to the logic of nationalism, this affinity signaled Muslims’ deviation from India and foreboded Muslim separatism. Probing into a rich historical archive, I argue that this extraterritorial turn implied neither a pan-Islamic geopolitical agenda nor any renunciation of loyalty to British India. On the contrary, the extraterritorial Turkish Empire represented, for them, a site for enacting what I call “vicarious sovereignty,” a form of authority that neither stems from the nation-state nor is actualized through violence; rather, it rests on the power of what anthropologists call charisma and functions as an empty signifier, which is conducive, above all, to the cultivation of self.

Modern Intellectual HistoryVol. 22(4)
University of Chicago (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.